About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Washington 3, Uc 2, San Francisco 2, Undecision 1, Jackson 1, Jason 1, Meg 1, The City 1, Us 1, Barb 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    March 12, 2013
    3:00 - 3:30pm PDT  

3:00pm
of the $15 million >> okay. and 2.1 and this is - 6 it's not 9 million this is a more expensive technical. >> yes. the jacking is like micro tunneling so it is a very expensive he methodology and it's used only when the cover type of technology didn't work. >> aside what are we avoiding? >> again part of it as we've gone through and pot how old we've found underground streets and other structures that were back in the days actually before preworld days as you know
3:01pm
everybody from east street was from unengineered portions and we're finding trenches. >> thank you that's helpful. i had originally when i was reading through it it appeared that this was a part of the pg&e issue. >> i have a quick question with respect to the second authorized from the bottom there's a reference to our staff. our staff to promote and provided support related support
3:02pm
to pg&e can you describe the work and the type of support that our staff provides or correct me if i'm saying that wrong >> the second from the last this is would be the work to redesign that portion of the project to avoid that e g and e utility. our staff needs to sign off on the u contract drawings which will be issued to the contractor and pg&e will reimburse us >> i'm comfortable with what i've got this far is there any more commissioner comments?
3:03pm
>> i'd like to call for public comment. >> david just two areas of certain first with regard to the review. i think there is a new section did i mention that i appreciate that. i'm hoping that will include the dates of the approval, the project number at the planning department what was referenced on the calendar and also a section on where the underlying documents what about reviewed just to have some more words in there. but in particular this makes reference to a march first 20013 planning review that the changes to the project don't have any
3:04pm
further environmental effect i think this is a - referred to a notice to file. this wasn't in the packet. and it's not at all clear where that's available for review. i assume it's buried in the planning departments files. i would compare this to the earlier discussion about a washington where there was any addendum. there was discussion about the. so in the future i would hope that the document is referenced in the calendar item etc. so i hope to get an answer to that and finally, i'm not sure given the location of this project what is relationship is
3:05pm
to the earlier 8 washington that was just talked about. it sounds like this is on drum and near jackson. is there some relationship can someone explain that >> thank you, mr. cruise. members of the commissioners while it is physically the same sewer that moves along those or along the alignment their separated in need. where respect to washington we feel we need to create this redundant line because of the north shore main. physically their close to each other but not >> commissioners what's your pleasure? i'll entertain a
3:06pm
motion. >> so moved. >> i'll seconded. >> any other discussion. ail in favor? >> item 11 reprove revised real estate guidelines. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm ahead of real estate i've been asked to expedite my discussion. and how we set rates for the income producing property of the p uc where we've made some modest changes. the changes are before you i'm happy to answer any questions >> commissioner any questions
3:07pm
on the item? i'd like to move it >> the items been moved is there a second? >> second. >> all in favor say i and my apologizes again. >> i remember when this came before the commission there was some discussion it was finally adopted but there are i couldn't typically the difference were. i'd be interested in what the changes are and in the further i'd like appreciate this information but i've got no objection it the item
3:08pm
>> we did submit tract versions. >> it's been moved and seblthd is there any further public comment? >> all those in favor? >> the motion carries madam secretary next item. >> item 12 the results and updated timeline. >> good afternoon commissioners barb. today's presentation will brief you on the results of our customer poll. the poll concluded and we're here with our consultant from f
3:09pm
m-3 dave will tell you about that. for our last two polls that we concluded with the report and we're also the first name that provided customer survey services to the energy program. they have quite a bit of energy information so with that i'll turn to dave >> thank you very much members of the public i'm with - >> could you get a my case. >> i'm dave i'm with fm 3 i'm going to walk through this. i'll be happy to answer any questions about they been app
3:10pm
plantations we we conducted 3 thousand interviews with people across the city. they were conducted in english and spanish and chinese. we said to make sure we don't care a big population view. the methodology is going to be where we change the wording slightly. there were rate changes, and we added an up to date information data. and this included care patients.
3:11pm
one question we repeat in this initial survey was designed to measure the public awareness. and we asked if people read anything about that and 20 percent last year told us they read it and essentially it has not changed this year. people say they have not yet familiar with the proposal. we had an initial question where we asked people to choose won two statements. we asked them if they would pay more for cleaner energy or if they'd pay the same rate if it
3:12pm
didn't change tail. roughly people are saying that they'd rather pay more for cleaner energy. following that general question we had a question anticipating that most members of the public wouldn't be familiar with that. the mechanics and the nature of the sources and it's impact over the long-term leading to cleaner facilities in the cities were we asked the recipients if they'd go back to pg&e. 40 people said they'd stay with pg&e. obviously, this question omits a
3:13pm
crucial piece of information about the increased rates. and there being a a large number of rate payers who sigh they'd stay with pg&e guessed they would stay with pg&e. you'll see the results here in 2011 and 2012. we had a third people say they'd stay with p geshgs and e and it increased 8 percent. i want to caution that last year, it was a different group of folks. but nevertheless, across the
3:14pm
survey there were more people who were interested. we offered the respondents about the not to exceed rate about their costs for their tier whether they're in tier 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. 34 percent said they'd stay with the program and 32 percent said they'd leave. now as one might expect the tiers are not uniform. we're showing you the electricity program. the greatest interest in staying with the program is at the tier
3:15pm
one level. the first sub group we see that the proportions said they'd stay with the program up to 34 percent. now we asked follow-up questions not to exceed rate for those who offered their opinions for those who said they'd stay with pg&e we offered lower rate and that did lead to a higher percent that stayed with pg&e. so this is the first place where we have a sizeable majority
3:16pm
>> i'm sorry did you quantity that? >> whether it's basic service. >> and what would it correspond to? > >>. i cheaper version of our program or is this to reflect the program >> it's a cheaper portion of our program and we'll get into that as well. >> how, it be less money i don't understand if it's a our program. >> so the contents there commissioner is we would as we described to you we'd be looking at a different mix of resources between the reinitially products
3:17pm
that we may procure and we may find them to be less expensive than we're currently projecting. >> so that's 1 hundred percent? >> it's still one hundred percent just the mix between the bundled project the renewable credits those varying forms of compliant revublz. >> you're not finished? >> yeah, the next line is about the question that was raised. we had another photocopy question that pg&e might over a
3:18pm
better program and gave an estimate of a lower rate. so we repeated the rate the customer would pay and the pg&e and having given them that information 74 percent said they'd continue to stay with the alternative program i have 41 percent who said they'd stay with the program and 41 percent who are going back to pg&e. now we still have some of those who were initially undecisions and then some of those who given
3:19pm
the additional active were undecision and these are the categories at the bottom of the slide. finally, we had a question at the end of the survey that attempted to describe the impact the clean energy in and around san francisco that will help to create jobs. given that description we had a final question 51 percent said they'd stay with clean energy and some said they wouldn't. i can see the portion of the repotence. it's 45 to thirty and not to exceed rate it's lower.
3:20pm
and after being present with the pg&e the numbers flip and it's lower for the clean program. so essentially it's 41 percent and 55 messenger depending upon that they would stay with the program at some point during the survey. so you'll just conclude mr. there and note that one of the major because it was designed is to provide numbers for a modeling chart. so they can go back to pg&e or go back to the clean program.
3:21pm
>> commissioners? >> you have a question if you could go back to slide 9 i think is. just to get a sense and maybe you, answer that without the visual that i can you u - can you give us a sense of this might be a technical question. by get a sense of and i can tell you households. overall in basic tier 316 and basic tier lower and then barb
3:22pm
this might be for you. one of the things we're going to be moving toward is this thirty to 40 meg. where wee would we end up >> the 20 to thirty meg waits is about 1 hundred and thirty thousand meg was the. we have - we have lots of buffer for our program. there's an effort underway to
3:23pm
our stafftomy to prepare more documents on the 25th. so you'll see what we're talking about for just residential customers because the board directed us not to include care and that will help you to visualizelize how much of the load of the overall san francisco pie. you'll see from that we have quite a bit of buffer quite an additional load that's being proposed in the program >> so it's about 2 add and 70
3:24pm
meg waits. >> correct a one hundred and 76 thousand meg wait hours. >> so a one hundred and 76 meg wait hours. >> so were in the zone of tiers one and two. >> so we're estimating that we can fully proscribe the program given the data that we've collected. >> okay. >> commissioner? >> how does that relate i think we had the heat chart so it wasn't by tier one and two but where in the city are we talking
3:25pm
about rolling out the program. so if you take the heat chart and take out the impact areas it changes the total market we're looking at. i understand you're still working on the heat chart? and yes and so we don't have answers to that? >> again that will be available on the 25th. >> what will be the total meg wait hours? >> it will be 2 hundred and thirty thousand meg wait hours. >> and that would be for somethingless for some percent of the customers. >> yes, a small percent of the san francisco residential
3:26pm
accounts. >> one thing i want to be clear on. it looks like when you take into account the whole city you look at it in specific terms of this is the first thing that we roll out what do the numbers show and we'll be able to show you the heat map and the pie at our meeting on the 25th >> so before i ask a question about the build out and before any public comment i'm going to ask jason to coming up come up to the front. i consider him to have some expertise in this area. given the fact we've had conversations about issues i
3:27pm
think it's appropriate on the data itself >> thank you for those kind words i'm not sure i've earned those kind words that you but the numbers are what the numbers are. the one part i'll disagree with the staff is on 11. it talks about the 74 who want to stay in the program. the problem is those are phone calls who were asked are you going to stay in the program or not and they said, yes. what's not being showed here a and is more relevant you get 8 to 10 percent of those folks who are not being included in the 74
3:28pm
percent. the way it's presented here is they're automatically leaving the program and that's not correct they have to fill out a form and they have to fill out a second form saying where they want to be. and so i think this unsells what is really going on and it would break it down. i've only be able to look at the top line numbers. folks say that they would leave are this percent. i'm probably is - so you're really looking at a mature different number how the program roles obvious and then pg&e lays
3:29pm
out at a future point what the numbers are. i would say how many are probably going to leave the program and who knows that you 710 now things can change because pg&es questions could change but but today presenting it this way was the reverse way i would have presented that >> i would have created the poll in a little bit of a different manner. the p uc staff has always been a little conservative but i tries the staff.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)